Alissa Trotz is editor of the In the Diaspora column
In their descriptions of Georgetown, older Guyanese in particular talk about the negative stereotypes associated with living or coming from the area known as ‘south of the burial ground’. I was reminded of this when the December arrests of Mark Benschop and Freddie Kissoon for allegedly blocking the Le Repentir cemetery entrance to the Mandela or Princes Street dumpsite, brought to public consciousness the conditions that residents have had to put up with since 1994 when, as James McAllister noted in his December 25th letter, the site was first erected as a demonstration sanitary landfill.
The official non-response shows what people can expect if they live in certain areas, and is a rude lesson in how social inequalities are produced through policies and inaction. On December 30th, Demerara Waves issued a story about a pilot project to build an exclusive housing area for remigrants at Eccles and Providence, in which Housing Minister Irfaan Ali reportedly reassured the public that the lots would not be “near low-income housing schemes.” Moreover, judging from the tone of the article, one presumes the experience of potential residents with the as yet unfinished East Bank Demerara Haags Bosch landfill site will not be the same as what neighbouring communities have had to endure from the Princes Street dumpsite. We have also seen reports of new, prosperous and clean housing developments, such as the one at Sparendaam where the President, cabinet members and other big shots have been allocated generous houselots. Again, one presumes they will not have to deal with a dumpsite at their doorstep, with abscesses on their children’s bodies, with stench, fires and smoke in their homes day and night. Indeed, but why should anyone? And where will their garbage end up?
Over the years, the Guyana Citizens Initiative (GCI) and Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) have issued Press Releases and written to Minister of Local Government Kellawan Lall on the matter of the Princes Street dumpsite. On September 9, 2008, in a joint statement they warned of a major public health catastrophe. The release described a range of health problems including skin infections, fever, vomiting, headaches and respiratory difficulties, many caused or aggravated by the fires emanating from the dumpsite; pointed to the infestation of rodents and flies; and referred to the potential commercial loss of value of properties.
Two days later, GCI and GHRA issued another press release in which they noted that at an emergency session of the Municipal Task Force, Minister Lall “instructed municipality to mobilize all its equipment and machinery to deal with the situation at the dump”, while Mayor Hamilton Green declared that the municipality lacked both the resources and technical competence to effectively respond. Neither party, the statement observed, even mentioned the regular and dangerous fires that were endangering the health of residents (the release noted that officers from the Guyana Fire Service were refusing to enter the dumpsite because earlier efforts to combat fires had resulted in firemen becoming ill for a protracted period of time).
On September 19th 2008, GCI and GHRA stated that “instead of a concerted effort by all concerned to bring a halt to the scandalous condition of the Princes Street dumpsite, those charged with the responsibility for its management are more preoccupied with scoring political points and pointing fingers than with finding a solution. In the wearisome dogfight between the City Council and the central government, the well-being of the residents of South Georgetown is all but forgotten.” They challenged the authorities “to set aside their wrangling and take urgent steps to address the public health concerns of the residents and to devise and implement the required short and long term technical and managerial solutions to the environmentally safe disposal of the waste that increases by 400 tons every day.”
Tragically, two years and more than 300,000 tons of garbage later, these press releases could have been written just yesterday. Last July, in the midst of the city’s garbage strike, Minister Lall remarked: “Well, if there is a health crisis in the city I’ll be glad because it will remove the city council. They’ll be responsible for it.” As I noted in a column at the time, “these vindictive and reckless remarks will not help to dislodge perceptions among many that politics are being played with the lives of ordinary citizens, that the people of Georgetown have been penalized over the years for electing a city council that did not meet the approval of the government, or that starving the city of funds and putting all the blame on the Council was one way of introducing an Interim Management Council through the backdoor.” Minister Lall’s comments on removing the city council were also, to be blunt, less than honest, for he should tell the Guyanese people why his government is standing in the way of implementing the recommendations of the Constitutional Reform Commission of 1999 and the Task Force on Local Government, reforms which are required before any local government elections – including for a new Mayor and City Council – can be held.
In that column I also drew attention to the Environmental Tax, introduced since 1995 and which has to date generated over five billion dollars. On the inconvenient little matter of transparency, could Finance Minister Ashni Singh explain to us precisely how these monies have been allocated, given the reassurance of his predecessor Mr. Asgar Ally to Parliament that “we have taken heed of the point made by the Honorable Minority Leader, and the Opposition spokesman on finance, that these funds be put in a special fund for environmental activities. It is our objective to have this environmental fund be put in place, so that the proceeds of this levy can be put into that fund”. Supposed to be placed into a separate fund, one presumes to handle situations like the Princes Street dumpsite, the monies generated from this tax have instead gone into the Consolidated Fund.
A few days after the arrest of Benschop and Kissoon on December 21st 2010, the Guyana Chronicle reported, based on statements by Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr. Roger Luncheon, that Cabinet would contribute “manpower, machinery and management based on evidence which suggests a failure of the current management at the Mandela Landfill Site”, and that these commitments would last until the new Haags Bosch site opened. The public is now meant to believe that the Government of Guyana has stepped in to save the day, that it bears no share of the blame, and that once Haags Bosch opens, the Mandela site will be quietly closed. That there will be no reason for actions against the state of inaction that has threatened residents for years, and that there will be no long-term environmental and health implications as a result of years of neglect.
In an important letter to Stabroek News of Monday January 3rd , columnist Christopher Ram challenged Minister Lall’s disavowal of government responsibility in relation to the Princes Street dumpsite by pointing to Article 149J (1) of the constitution which guarantees to all “the right to an environment that is not harmful to his or her health or well-being.”
The importance of this constitutional provision, and its implications for action, should not be underestimated. The constitution is the supreme law, which means that any state action, whether ordinary law or executive act, in contravention of its provisions is unlawful. Following the recommendations of the Constitutional Reform Commission, the Bill of Rights in Guyana’s Constitution was amended in 2003 to include a number of enhanced equality rights. Among the latter were several social and cultural rights, including Article 149J that guarantees to all the right to an environment that is not harmful to one’s health or well-being. Article 149J also imposes specific obligations upon the state under sub-article (2), such as to implement measures to prevent pollution and ecological degradation. Significantly, this right is not intended to have merely persuasive value, for its inclusion among the fundamental rights provisions signals its status as an enforceable and justiciable right. Crucially, this means that where government actions contravene this constitutional guarantee, citizens can demand redress under a specific procedure outlined in Article 153, which confers considerable powers on the High Court to “make such orders, issue such writs and give such directions as it considers appropriate for the purpose of enforcing … any of the provisions of articles 138 to 151…”
Our constitution offers a way then, through the High Court, to take action against the Government of Guyana and City Council. The famous quote from Hamlet, ‘Something is rotten in the State of Denmark,’ applies to so much more than the dumpsite here. We need no more evidence of the bungling incompetence of the City Council, Ministry of Local Government and Environmental Protection Agency, their refusal to assume joint leadership, their willingness to sacrifice people’s health and lives on the altar of their callous, self-serving, finger-pointing politics. It should be clear to us all that they share the same low ground on this matter. And we should also ask, as Christopher Ram did, where all the other so-called political leaders and parliamentarians, all those starting to fall over themselves to scramble for Guyanese votes this election year, are on this matter. We should beware of them as well when they come knocking or fasten themselves to this issue opportunistically.
What is needed is a co-ordinated effort with clear and achievable goals that begins with the experiences and priorities of women, children and men living in the area. Organizing a response will not be easy, for people caught between the blame games of our politicians are tired, caught up with everyday survival, cynical about ‘wha’ difference it gun mek?’ Going back to the GCI and GHRA 2008 press releases, however, it is clear that there is a basis for going forward, for they describe repeated efforts on the part of residents to contact a range of authorities, including the Ministry of Health, Environmental Protection Agency, City Council and even the local office of the Pan-American Health Organization. Despite residents’ appeals, all of these entities kept referring the issue to another agency, refusing to get involved or take any responsibility, or to see this as an urgent matter that required a co-ordinated response. In the absence of official acknowledgment of their plight, residents also collaborated with the GHRA and GCI to distribute hundreds of leaflets on how to take every-day precautions to households as well as the St. Sidwell’s Primary and Lodge Nursery schools. This tells us that there is movement in these communities and it is here and nowhere else that we must begin. All of these actions, and other matters, must be carefully documented for any court challenge. Christopher Ram mentioned citizens’ action in countries in Africa and India, and in a later column I will describe successful environmental action taken by the Saramaka people against their government in neighbouring Suriname.
